| 00:03 | <TabAtkins> | zewt: "I am sorry for both", hahaha |
| 00:15 | <zewt> | TabAtkins: even ratcheting up second-language leniency, this guy is ... trying |
| 04:53 | <MikeSmith> | https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22339#c24 |
| 04:53 | <MikeSmith> | from Jungshik |
| 04:53 | <MikeSmith> | "there are two 'pseudo-Unicode/font-based encodings' widely used for Burmese/Myanmar. In a sense, it's even worse because the pages are apparently in UTF-8 but Unicode code points are interpreted differently than what's specified by Unicode." |
| 05:26 | <kochi> | MikeSmith: hi |
| 05:27 | <kochi> | MikeSmith: sorry for not updating the status, but we are still discussing details... |
| 05:28 | <kochi> | but I've updated the IME API draft in mercurial with some changes which are being discussed. |
| 05:30 | <MikeSmith> | kochi: no worries, man. Stuff takes time. |
| 05:31 | <kochi> | MikeSmith: thanks. I would like to post the draft as early as possible to start discussion. |
| 05:32 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 05:34 | <kochi> | MikeSmith: i missed you at the office last week :) |
| 05:46 | <MikeSmith> | kochi: yeah, had a fun lunch with Kenji and Zack and Dominic |
| 08:09 | <MikeSmith> | is slightlyoff's DOM Futures stuff something that's a potential candidate for standardization? (eventually, I mean) |
| 08:09 | <MikeSmith> | https://github.com/slightlyoff/DOMFuture |
| 08:11 | <MikeSmith> | oh, I guess it is, for standardization in JavaScript |
| 08:11 | <MikeSmith> | eventual subsetting by |
| 08:12 | <MikeSmith> | https://github.com/slightlyoff/DOMFuture/blob/master/DOMFuture.idl#L27 |
| 08:12 | <MikeSmith> | "eventual subsetting by TC39 for adding Futures to the language directly" |
| 08:52 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: yeah, will prolly add that to DOM at some point |
| 08:53 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK |
| 08:53 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: once it's stable enough |
| 08:58 | <jgraham> | annevk: Saying 'throw a "SyntaxError"' reads weirdly to me. I was expecting the word "exception" and had to backtrack when I didn't find it. |
| 08:58 | <annevk> | you mean there's no "exception" after that? |
| 08:59 | <annevk> | because I think that's a bug, unless I changed conventions |
| 08:59 | <jgraham> | I was looking at http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-mutationobserver-observe |
| 09:01 | <annevk> | Yeah that text was not from me and I didn't catch it |
| 09:24 | <slightlyoff> | MikeSmith: so The Plan (TM) is that we get the event-loving version into DOM and get a version without events into JS, lining one up as the superclass and the other as the subclass |
| 09:35 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK, that's what you mean by "eventual subsetting", I guess |
| 09:45 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: looks I'll be missing yet another TAG telcon |
| 09:45 | <annevk> | not that the minutes made them look appealing... |
| 09:46 | <slightlyoff> | Sorry to hear that. |
| 10:15 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: what happened to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660660 ? |
| 10:16 | <Ms2ger> | Other stuff taking up my time |
| 10:20 | <jgraham> | Nice bug number |
| 10:26 | <Ms2ger> | Not an accident :) |
| 10:31 | <jgraham> | You only file in cute bug numbers? "Have a remote code exploit, but waiting for bug 654321 to file it" |
| 10:41 | <annevk> | The custom element interaction with createElement is really ugly :/ |
| 10:42 | <annevk> | dglazkov: slightlyoff: if we don't like createElement, why are we trying to make it work? |
| 10:52 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: that's too bad |
| 10:52 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: DOM is still riddled with comments regarding both Attr and that |
| 10:52 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: and a couple of other things |
| 10:58 | <annevk> | Wait, custom names only have to match Name? |
| 10:59 | <annevk> | So you can have <xml:troll-:::> or some such? |
| 10:59 | <annevk> | or even :-: |
| 11:00 | <annevk> | I wish ) was allowed |
| 11:00 | <annevk> | :-P |
| 11:00 | <Ms2ger> | <:)> |
| 11:02 | <annevk> | you're lacking a dash |
| 11:02 | <annevk> | it's required |
| 11:02 | <odinho> | <:-)> cool tag |
| 11:03 | <jgraham> | But the correct match would be <:-(></:-)> |
| 11:04 | <annevk> | again, ) is not a valid code point |
| 11:04 | <annevk> | anyway, filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20973 |
| 11:04 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: its actually not that bad. We have a solution on the JS side for the worst bits. |
| 11:04 | <slightlyoff> | As for why...because reality and legacy |
| 11:04 | <jgraham> | annevk: We know :p |
| 11:04 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: what legacy? |
| 11:05 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: and it's pretty bad |
| 11:06 | <annevk> | https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/custom/index.html#monkeypatch-create-element is no good |
| 11:10 | slightlyoff | looks |
| 11:11 | <slightlyoff> | I don't understand what's wrong about formalizing the "your shadow tree creation and finalization methods will be called"? |
| 11:11 | <slightlyoff> | unless the argument is that the lifecycle should be internally driven, e.g., from the ctor |
| 11:12 | <slightlyoff> | (which was the case in one of my early designs) |
| 11:12 | <annevk> | What's wrong is monkeypatching createElement() with magic |
| 11:12 | <slightlyoff> | so |
| 11:12 | <slightlyoff> | 1.) it's not magic |
| 11:12 | <slightlyoff> | it's an explanation of something that already happens in elements |
| 11:12 | <slightlyoff> | e.g., if I create a new <input> type, a shadow dom is created...when? how? MAGIC! |
| 11:12 | <slightlyoff> | this says "it happens here" |
| 11:12 | <slightlyoff> | and we can explain existing stuff better |
| 11:12 | <slightlyoff> | so that's anti-magic |
| 11:13 | <slightlyoff> | 2.) it's not monkey-patching per-sae |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | I wonder if what you state there is actually true. |
| 11:13 | <slightlyoff> | it's outlining the extensibility point |
| 11:13 | <slightlyoff> | there's a debate about if these things happen inside our outside of constructors |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | Typically existing stuff has weird requirements that are not well understood. |
| 11:13 | <slightlyoff> | e.g., if createElement("textarea") de-sugars to: |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | And we haven't exactly flushed that out yet. |
| 11:13 | <slightlyoff> | var ta = new HTMLTextAreaElement(); |
| 11:13 | <slightlyoff> | the question is: |
| 11:14 | <slightlyoff> | does the constructor itself call the appropriate lifecycle methods? |
| 11:14 | <slightlyoff> | or does createElement also do: |
| 11:14 | <slightlyoff> | ta.initializeShadowRoot(); |
| 11:14 | <slightlyoff> | ta.finalize(); |
| 11:14 | <slightlyoff> | i.e., who drives the lifecycle |
| 11:14 | <slightlyoff> | *that* is the debate |
| 11:14 | <annevk> | The constructor should. |
| 11:14 | <slightlyoff> | and I could go both ways on it |
| 11:14 | <annevk> | Otherwise new Image() doesn't work the way it does now. |
| 11:15 | <annevk> | Or new Audio() |
| 11:15 | <annevk> | We already have element constructors that are equivalent to their createElement call |
| 11:16 | <slightlyoff> | ok, so I think that's a strong argument |
| 11:17 | <slightlyoff> | we should go have this debate with dglazkov then = ) |
| 11:17 | <annevk> | I guess I can post to public-webapps |
| 11:17 | <slightlyoff> | I don't know that the "new Image()" pun was part of my design thinking for the early drafts, but it does make a nice case |
| 11:17 | <slightlyoff> | my early designs had a superclass ctor and/or public initialization method |
| 11:18 | <slightlyoff> | the objections to the latter is that it clutters the public API of the component with lifecycle gunk |
| 11:18 | <slightlyoff> | the objection to the former is that not calling super() is now hazardous to an element's health |
| 11:20 | <slightlyoff> | the objection to an external lifecycle driver is that it requires that elements be robust against lifecycle extensions and that you now have what might appear to be 'magic' if you're just sitting there looking at the code for a class |
| 11:21 | <slightlyoff> | i.e., you need to understand what some other system you're interacting with will do to/with you |
| 11:23 | <slightlyoff> | moving locations...back in a bit |
| 11:24 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0371.html |
| 11:24 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: might be better to elaborate there |
| 11:31 | <annevk> | Hmm, <template><script> has magic too |
| 11:31 | <annevk> | euh |
| 11:32 | <annevk> | <element><script> |
| 11:32 | <annevk> | but <element><b><script> does not... |
| 11:34 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: not sure I understand...you mean <element> script invokes the script with special expectations? |
| 11:34 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: I think I had argued that it should have some distinguishing attribute |
| 11:34 | <slightlyoff> | but I'm not fussed |
| 11:34 | <annevk> | it ignores async/defer |
| 11:34 | <slightlyoff> | ahhh |
| 11:34 | <slightlyoff> | good point |
| 11:34 | <annevk> | but only if it's a child |
| 11:35 | <annevk> | so <element><shadow><script> would be different, but maybe <shadow> has its own set of rules |
| 11:35 | <slightlyoff> | so the the seemingly strange thing is that it modifies script to be context aware |
| 11:35 | <slightlyoff> | I think that's what we should fix |
| 11:36 | <slightlyoff> | <script constructorFor="elementId"> |
| 11:36 | <jgraham> | Oh wow, monkeypatch heaven |
| 11:36 | <slightlyoff> | or similar |
| 11:36 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, can you deal with https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/pull/26#issuecomment-13428637 ? |
| 11:36 | <annevk> | It's also probably because I've not been part of the design phase, so I've no idea what the considerations were and it all looks kinda funky |
| 11:36 | <annevk> | I've had the same looking at the font loading proposal this morning |
| 11:36 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: it's good to get these things aired |
| 11:37 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: and even if it's just replaying the arguments from our perspective to get everyone on board, it's still a good thing |
| 11:37 | <slightlyoff> | if only because it gives me the chance to argue against soem magic I didn't vote for the first time around = ) |
| 11:37 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: So I really should be getting notifications on that repo. I guess darobin needs to add me to it or something though |
| 11:38 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: cunning |
| 11:38 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: I guess I can fix that today sometime |
| 12:51 | <annevk> | Hmm, given http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-element's-base-url maybe DOM should define xml:base |
| 12:59 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, ta |
| 13:36 | <karlcow> | http://relogo.org/ |
| 13:37 | <karlcow> | >rel="logo" is a proposed standard for serving and maintaining up-to-date logos for use in various media. |
| 13:37 | <karlcow> | proposed where? |
| 13:37 | <Ms2ger> | Right there |
| 13:37 | <Ms2ger> | And probably nowhere else |
| 13:43 | <annevk> | euhm icon? |
| 13:59 | <MikeSmith> | hmm I find that Vine videos don't display at all in Chromium that I build from sources but do display in Chrome Canary and normal Chrome. I wonder they wouldn't work in my local build. I can view other videos just find. What's different about Vide videos? |
| 13:59 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: Sounds like a feature |
| 13:59 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 14:00 | <MikeSmith> | I wanna see the cats man |
| 14:01 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: Chrome comes with Flash |
| 14:03 | <MikeSmith> | ah Flash |
| 14:03 | <MikeSmith> | dinnet know |
| 14:04 | <MikeSmith> | wait but if it's Flash that means you can't view Vine videos in the i0S browser either |
| 14:05 | <jgraham> | Unless they UA switch or summat |
| 14:08 | <MikeSmith> | hmm it's not Flash in Chrome. it's HTML video. But .mp4. So I guess it must be that Chromium doesn't do H.264 |
| 14:25 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: It doesn't |
| 14:26 | <jgraham> | But it's OK, Google are going to remove that! |
| 14:26 | <jgraham> | (is that joke even funny anymore?) |
| 14:26 | <Ms2ger> | Well, Opera had it first |
| 14:26 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 14:26 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: A sense of humor? |
| 14:27 | <Ms2ger> | Hah: http://w3cmemes.tumblr.com/post/42864050694/dept-of-epiphanies-benedict-realizes-where |
| 14:29 | <MikeSmith> | so the user experience sucks as far as making it clear that it doesn't support it. All you get is black. No "You're browser can't display this video." But I guess for the 0.0001% of the people in the universe who are running Chromium it's not big whoop. |
| 14:31 | <Ms2ger> | "You're"? |
| 14:31 | <zewt> | awooga awooga |
| 14:33 | <MikeSmith> | good catch, lemme correct that |
| 14:33 | <MikeSmith> | ""You're browser can't display this video." |
| 14:33 | <MikeSmith> | oops |
| 14:33 | <MikeSmith> | "You're a browser that can't display this video." |
| 14:33 | <MikeSmith> | it's a message to the browser, not to the user |
| 14:34 | <MikeSmith> | that's kind of the way they llike to do things in Chromium |
| 14:34 | <MikeSmith> | they find it easier to talk to the machines than the people |
| 14:34 | <jgraham> | You're a little browser short and stout? |
| 14:35 | <zewt> | at least the machines might listen |
| 14:35 | <MikeSmith> | HEY BROWSER YU NO CANT DISPLAY THIS VIDEO?? |
| 14:35 | <zewt> | they should put a button that randomly appears in chrome with big red text "clicking this button will delete all your stuff", just to do stats on how many people click it |
| 14:35 | <MikeSmith> | machines like to be spoken to in all caps, from early on in computing history. Lowercase is a fad. |
| 14:37 | <MikeSmith> | zewt: I would click just out of curiosity, to see if there's any bugs in their delete-all-my-stuff implementation |
| 14:37 | <darobin> | I always said we needed Uppercase XHTML |
| 14:37 | <darobin> | the content type for which would of course simply be APPLICATION/XHTML+XML |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | that makes me think for polyglot we should have a content-type with mixed case -- text/pOLyGloT |
| 14:42 | <MikeSmith> | or something more descriptive like text/IamPolYgLotPleAseLoVeMeAnDtReatWithCaRe |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | A MIME type for polyglot? What universe is this? |
| 14:45 | <MikeSmith> | it's called the Good Times Universe. It's kind of like the Marvel Universe, except with Good Times instead of costumed superheros |
| 14:45 | <jgraham> | annevk: As I said yesterday, this is bizzaroverse in which governments make annoucements on Facebook and polyglot is not only a fabulous idea but needs its own MIME type |
| 14:45 | <MikeSmith> | hah |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | Can I have a pet hippo? |
| 14:49 | <jgraham> | No, but you can have a pet hippie. Will that do? |
| 14:49 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: speaking of Good Times I hope you guys that are part of the incoming Papal regime end up doing your own brand of hobbyhorse lobbying for stuff the way the previous Pope was so fond of stuff like Polyglot and making us create a separate language-without-UA-requirements HTML spec and that kind of stuff |
| 14:50 | <annevk> | MikeSmith is enough pet hippie for me jgraham. I'd much rather have a pet hippo. And come to think of it, some place to put it, because my studio is not a good fit for a hippo :-) |
| 14:50 | <MikeSmith> | cause that's the kind of stuff I love spending my time on, for years and years and years |
| 14:50 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: we'd hate to disappoint |
| 14:51 | <MikeSmith> | get a tiny hippo. They make them in different sizes these days. pygmy hippo is one size that's a good for London studio apartments |
| 14:52 | <darobin> | annevk: they make smaller sizes precisely for the likes of you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_hippopotamus |
| 14:52 | <darobin> | see what happens when you get MikeSmith and I working together? inside of a few months we're both suggesting pygmy hippos |
| 14:52 | <MikeSmith> | or just get a bulldog. It's almost the same as a tiny hippo. Especially if you shave all the hair off. |
| 14:52 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 14:52 | <MikeSmith> | Good Times |
| 14:53 | <zewt> | but whatever you do, don't shave a bear http://thewholegardenwillbow.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/img001862.jpg |
| 14:53 | <MikeSmith> | W3C got Mr Toad driving this bus |
| 14:54 | <MikeSmith> | zewt wtf wow |
| 14:55 | <zewt> | that's probably what the bear was thinking |
| 14:57 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 14:58 | <darobin> | wtf, that's ugly |
| 14:59 | <darobin> | also, don't comb your lion http://www.makemybeauty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/timotei-lion.jpg |
| 15:29 | <annevk> | HTML needs event parent / cross-boundary event parent |
| 15:29 | <annevk> | Shadow DOM needs event parent, but along with that it also wants to store a target and a relatedTarget (not in Shadow DOM yet because of a bug) |
| 15:34 | <annevk> | So you ask for the event parent. On that object you ask for a override target and possibly an relatedTarget? |
| 15:34 | <annevk> | s/an/a/ |
| 15:37 | <annevk> | Of course Shadow DOM is weird. dglazkov, what gets me answers quicker, email or bugs? |
| 15:55 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: I guess you're not going to tell me what BIS means now? :) |
| 15:58 | <annevk> | Hixie: Shadow DOM is why DOM and HTML should probably just merge. |
| 16:32 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20913 it seems the other behavior that's weird is that createElement would return an element with an is="" attribute |
| 16:33 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: that's completely new |
| 16:33 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: I want the "is" attribute to die in a fire, so that's not me ;-) |
| 16:33 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: but the whole is="" thing does not appear to be defined so you miss it if you just read the drafts :/ |
| 16:33 | slightlyoff | summons dglazkov |
| 16:49 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 16:50 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: dglazkov: commented here: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20913#c24 |
| 16:50 | <annevk> | dglazkov: left you with various bug reports and questions |
| 16:50 | <dglazkov> | annevk: I saw that! Thanks! |
| 16:51 | <annevk> | dglazkov: oh, and when I seem frustrated, just ignore that bit ;) |
| 16:51 | <dglazkov> | annevk: why do you seem frustrated? :) |
| 16:51 | <annevk> | because Shadow DOM? :p |
| 16:52 | <annevk> | I like the concept, I'm not a fan of the spec |
| 16:52 | dglazkov | sulks |
| 16:54 | <dglazkov> | annevk: well, the good news is that I am not done with the spec |
| 16:55 | <annevk> | I tend to think that eventually most of it will be either part of HTML or DOM |
| 16:55 | <annevk> | With what's left integrated into CSS's box model generation algorithm (if they ever define that) |
| 16:55 | <dglazkov> | annevk: yep |
| 16:56 | <annevk> | but I can see how the monkeypatching is a nice start to figure things out first |
| 16:56 | <annevk> | since it's such a big thing |
| 17:21 | <dglazkov> | annevk: you can already do document.createElement(":-P") today |
| 17:24 | <annevk> | dglazkov: yes, but not createElementNS |
| 17:25 | <annevk> | dglazkov: and you cannot write <:-P> in XML either |
| 17:28 | <dglazkov> | annevk: I see |
| 17:29 | <smaug____> | hmm, web components becoming more and more like XTF+XBL |
| 17:29 | <smaug____> | which is good, I think |
| 17:30 | <annevk> | smaug____: you would say that |
| 17:34 | <annevk> | dglazkov: so is http://www.w3.org/TR/components-intro/ information that is missing elsewhere, but also wrong? |
| 17:34 | <annevk> | dglazkov: should I read it? |
| 17:35 | <dglazkov> | annevk: it's just old, I need to update it to reflect all the latest changes. What I was pointing to is the callbacks. |
| 17:35 | <annevk> | sure, I got that |
| 17:35 | <annevk> | just wondering about the rest :) |
| 17:36 | <dglazkov> | the rest is handwavy right (for web devs), but is obsolete |
| 17:38 | <annevk> | dglazkov: so the spec missing right now is decorators? |
| 17:38 | <annevk> | dglazkov: everything else is available? |
| 17:38 | <dglazkov> | annevk: and packaging: <link rel=components> |
| 17:39 | <annevk> | ah yeah, some external stuff to complicate matters |
| 17:40 | <annevk> | hmm, why wouldn't <template><html> work? |
| 17:40 | <annevk> | that's too bad |
| 17:41 | <marcosc> | annevk: what's the deal with http://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/ ? dead? |
| 17:41 | <Ms2ger> | marcosc, being implemented, why? |
| 17:42 | <annevk> | marcosc: why do you assume it's dead given it's last updated two weeks ago? |
| 17:42 | <annevk> | marcosc: and hey, welcome to IRC! |
| 17:42 | <marcosc> | just wondering… I'm looking at the Alarm stuff from SysApps and it seems that many of the use cases could be covered if Notifications were timed |
| 17:42 | <marcosc> | annevk: I was not sure, as the WG shut down |
| 17:43 | <marcosc> | annevk: so I was a bit confused |
| 17:43 | <annevk> | marcosc: WHATWG != W3C |
| 17:44 | <marcosc> | different logo, same £@$t :) |
| 17:44 | <annevk> | marcosc: also, last I heard W3C reopened with a chair from Apple, not sure who they lined up as editor |
| 17:44 | <annevk> | marcosc: not really, we don't close down WGs and our stuff can be forked |
| 17:44 | <marcosc> | annevk: ah, ok. I checked the mailing list which pointed me to the WHATWG version |
| 17:44 | <marcosc> | annevk: I know, just teasing :) |
| 17:45 | <marcosc> | annevk: ok, good to know that they are not dead. |
| 17:46 | <marcosc> | annevk: I'm wondering if the group discussed time-dependent notifications (reminders)? That would trigger many even after the use leaves the page. |
| 17:46 | <annevk> | marcosc: well dunno, the W3C WG might not be dead in theory, but in practice... In any event, the WHATWG stuff is being implemented afaik |
| 17:47 | <annevk> | marcosc: no, but that could be added |
| 17:47 | <annevk> | though someone should look at the security implications of that |
| 17:47 | <marcosc> | annevk: cool. I'll see if I can discuss the use cases a bit more with the SysApps group and bounce it over this way |
| 17:48 | <marcosc> | annevk: yeah, absolutely. There are a lot of issues with all this stuff |
| 17:48 | <marcosc> | Right now, I'm just trying to get the use cases straight |
| 17:49 | <annevk> | dglazkov: thanks for unrolling that :) |
| 17:49 | <annevk> | dglazkov: might have to wait with reviewing that until tomorrow |
| 17:49 | <dglazkov> | annevk: another person to ping about this is hayato⊙co |
| 17:50 | <dglazkov> | he actually wrote most of this code in WebKit and contributed heavily to the algorithm. Also, check out the test suite. These guys have gone through the same exercise. |
| 17:50 | <dglazkov> | http://w3c-test.org/webapps/ShadowDOM/tests/submissions/Google/ |
| 17:53 | <annevk> | ta |
| 18:32 | <volkmar> | win 16 |
| 18:40 | <roidelapluie> | hello |
| 18:40 | <roidelapluie> | I am translating a call for paper webform from english to dutch |
| 18:41 | <roidelapluie> | I am looking for some dutch-speaking people to help me |
| 18:41 | <roidelapluie> | https://pad.rmll.info/7vvOtOvwBQ |
| 18:41 | <roidelapluie> | thank you in advance :) |
| 19:29 | <Hixie> | man i hate twitter. such a disaster of an interfce. |
| 19:40 | <annevk> | Hixie: Twitter is opt-in, even more so than bureaucracy ;-) |
| 19:42 | <Ms2ger> | Zing |
| 19:43 | <jgraham> | It would just improve the universe a little if everyone else opted out |
| 19:44 | <Hixie> | annevk: people keep asking me questiosn there |
| 19:44 | <Hixie> | annevk: so, not really |
| 19:44 | <Hixie> | annevk: ah, also, since you're here |
| 19:44 | <Ms2ger> | Well, people keep asking you to deal with bureaucracy too :) |
| 19:44 | <Hixie> | annevk: twitter reset the whatwg password |
| 19:45 | <Hixie> | annevk: because they got hacked or some nonsense |
| 19:45 | <Hixie> | annevk: also, re dom and html -- i think _all_ the web platform specs should be merged into one big spec. The only reason IMHO we have to split the specs is to make sure each part is only edited by one person, who has exclusive blame for any mistakes. |
| 19:46 | <Hixie> | Ms2ger: yeah but there is a higher net benefit to me answering people's questions than to anyone doing pointless bureaucracy. |
| 19:46 | <annevk> | Hixie: can you pm me the new password? |
| 19:46 | <annevk> | Hixie: or check it into GitHub |
| 19:47 | <Hixie> | checking it into github seems like a spectacularily bad idea :-P |
| 19:47 | <annevk> | Hixie: we have a private repo mostly for Twitter passwords |
| 19:47 | <Hixie> | ah ok |
| 19:47 | <Hixie> | yeah let me get it and i'll /msg you hold on |
| 19:48 | <annevk> | Hixie: as for specs, as long as they can be sensibly layered I think it makes some sense to do so |
| 19:48 | <annevk> | Hixie: once they get intertwined without clear separation it's bad |
| 19:51 | Ms2ger | kicks whatwg.org |
| 19:51 | <Ms2ger> | Anyone else having issues connection? |
| 19:51 | <Ms2ger> | connecting, even |
| 19:51 | <Hixie> | whatwg.org is working fine for me, but other things on the same host are giving me issues |
| 19:51 | <Hixie> | so i'm glad it's not just me |
| 19:52 | <Hixie> | load average: 0.08, 0.06, 0.22 so it's not that... |
| 19:52 | <Hixie> | half a gig of RAM free... |
| 19:52 | <Hixie> | what the heck |
| 19:55 | <Hixie> | Ms2ger: try now? |
| 19:56 | <Ms2ger> | Doesn't look better |
| 19:57 | <Hixie> | are you failing at dns, routing, or http? |
| 20:08 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie, fine now |
| 20:09 | <Hixie> | k |
| 20:09 | <Hixie> | no idea what that was about |
| 21:13 | <annevk> | Hixie: btw, http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fetch |
| 21:13 | <roc> | I'm unable to subscribe to public-html-media. Anyone know who I should contact to sort that out? |
| 21:14 | <annevk> | roc: iirc sysreq⊙wo, they're on W3C IRC too |
| 21:15 | <annevk> | roc: MikeSmith is responsible for the list |
| 21:16 | <annevk> | roc: maybe you should try again though or check your spam box? plenty of people managed to subscribe |
| 21:16 | <roc> | I've tried twice. The email may be dropped by some spam filter somewhere but I can't find it. |
| 21:18 | <annevk> | so I'm guessing MikeSmith is asleep for another couple of hours, so your best bet would probably be to ask on W3C IRC and failing that the email address |
| 21:24 | <darobin> | roc: lemme look into that |
| 21:24 | <roc> | let me just do a bit more digging :-) |
| 21:26 | <darobin> | roc: you're subscribed now |
| 21:26 | <roc> | ok |
| 21:26 | <roc> | thanks!!! |
| 21:26 | <darobin> | I'm not sure you should thank me for it, but hey, no problem ;) |
| 21:27 | <darobin> | and with this evil deed done, I'm off to bed |
| 21:36 | <annevk> | Hixie: my plan is to start working on that to somewhat contain the CORS / Fetch mess and make it more concrete how various URL schemes are actually dealt with |
| 22:05 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: interested in seeing if the URL parser can be rewritten too? |
| 22:06 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: it doesn't really have a separate tokenization step though, so I guess it might be tricky |
| 22:09 | <annevk> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0278.html seems relevant to my interests |
| 22:13 | <Hixie> | annevk: k. if you could keep the spec hook API identical to what we have now that would be most awesome as it would make it easier to merge. The encoding and URL merges were quite painful. :-( |
| 22:15 | <annevk> | Hixie: I'll try to keep changes to a minimum, but I suspect there'll be some as move towards one algorithm |
| 22:15 | <annevk> | we* |
| 22:21 | <annevk> | "Television is generally a more expensive medium than music to produce due to the amount of labour involved" |
| 22:21 | <annevk> | uhuh |
| 22:22 | <annevk> | and fonts are different from graphics because they're special and such |
| 22:23 | <annevk> | each industry seems to have found their own unique reason why they need DRM as opposed to the rest of the planet |
| 22:29 | Philip` | wonders if annevk is disagreeing that TV is significantly more expensive, or just disagreeing that that's a relevant factor for DRM |
| 22:29 | <Hixie> | annevk: the argument would be more convincing if DRM had any effect on that |
| 22:29 | <Philip`> | (It seems TV can easily cost a million dollars per hour, and a large orchestra is probably a couple of orders of magnitude less than that) |
| 22:29 | <annevk> | Philip`: the latter |
| 22:36 | <Philip`> | Music has been broadcast over the airwaves to anybody who wants to listen, entirely free, for decades, and managed a commercially viable business model, so the internet isn't much of a change - but clearly TV is nothing like that |
| 22:37 | <Hixie> | true, nobody has ever broadcast TV to anyone with a receiver |
| 22:39 | gsnedders | notes there are plenty of places where TVs are not free, unlike radios |
| 22:44 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: wait, what? radios are free? |
| 22:47 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Well, I meant in the sentence of the British TV license and similar around the world. |
| 22:48 | <Hixie> | well that can apply online as well (indeed, it does for iPlayer) |
| 22:48 | <Hixie> | not like Channel 5 gets that money |
| 22:59 | Philip` | wonders if you're allowed to watch iPlayer live if you've only got a black-and-white TV licence |
| 23:09 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: If you watch it on a black-and-white monitor, I think is the answer. |
| 23:17 | <Hixie> | hsivonen, abarth: ping https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17845 |
| 23:17 | <abarth> | hi |
| 23:18 | <abarth> | reading |
| 23:19 | <abarth> | we haven't run into any compatibility problems with webkit's current behavior |
| 23:21 | <abarth> | I don't see any explicit code in the adoption agency implementation in webkit that mentions the form |
| 23:21 | <abarth> | but its possible that there's something happening implicitly in the DOM machinery |
| 23:22 | <abarth> | I'll copy the above into the bug |
| 23:31 | <Hixie> | abarth: pretty sure you've no special case code, you're doing what the spec says to do |
| 23:31 | <abarth> | ok, great. :) |
| 23:31 | <abarth> | I generally prefer the spec to be stable, we we'll change to match the spec if it changes |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | wish microsoft would give us steps to reproduce |
| 23:33 | Hixie | curses anne for using "set" as the variable name for an ordered list in DOM |
